This is where you are wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rotherhood-blames-America-for-the-unrest.html Egypt crisis: Muslim Brotherhood blames America for the unrest Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood yesterday asserted itself in anti-government protests, blaming America for the unrest because of its support for President Hosni Mubarak Esam al-Erian, a senior member of the executive council, said the West's fears for Egypt's future were due to America's "foolish policies". "America's alliances are being exposed, one by one," he told The Daily Telegraph on Monday. "You can take in the view from Tunisia to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and even Palestine to see what has happened." Mr Erian was one of 34 Muslim Brotherhood leaders arrested in advance of last Friday's demonstrations but released when prisons were emptied on Saturday night. He arrived in Tahrir Square on Sunday evening to a hero's welcome, and told the crowds they would hold fast "however many martyrs there are". The Brotherhood, which seeks to rebuild Egypt's government on Islamic lines and has until this month presented the best-organised opposition to Mr Mubarak, says it does not want to take a leadership position in any interim government. But it has given its backing to attempts to form a government of national unity by Mohammed ElBaradei, the former United Nations nuclear agency head who has become an opposition figurehead. That is likely to be a sop to western sentiments and governments who do not want to see the Brotherhood playing a role in government and potentially disrupting Egypt's role as a peacemaker in relations between Israel and the Arab world. Another reason why this is not plausible is that pro-regime sentiment is certainly not dominating "on the street", so why would pro-regime people trying to spread rumors have much credibility?
The MB is saying that American support for Mubarak helped his rule for the last 30 years (hard to argue agaisnt that, given the amount of military aid given by the U.S. each year), but there's no call to hunt for foreigners because they support Mubarak. On the other hand, the regime is spreading word, through state TV, that foreign elements and foreign media are to blame for the unrest and the police and pro-government crowd are out there looking for Qataries (Al Jazeera), Israelis, Iranians, Hamas, and reporters and aid workers from all foreign countries. Here's a story from one reporter who was detained by police because he was mistakenly thought of as an Iranian. http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-through-the-street-by-an-egyptian-mob/70741/ And numerous others reported being detained by police and confronted by pro-Mubarak crowds.
Get Ready for the Muslim Brotherhood By AYAAN HIRSI ALI Published: February 3, 2011 WASHINGTON — In 1985, as a teenager in Kenya, I was an adamant member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Seventeen years later, in 2002, I took part in a political campaign to win votes for the conservative party in the Netherlands. Those two experiences gave me some insights that I think are relevant to the current crisis in Egypt. They lead me to believe it is highly likely but not inevitable that the Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections to be held in Egypt this coming September. As a participant in an election campaign, I learned a few basic lessons: • The party must have a political program all members commit to with a vision of how to govern the country until the next election. Dissent within the party is a sure way of losing elections. • Candidates must articulate not only what they will do for the country but also why the other party’s program will be catastrophic for the nation. • The party has to be embedded in as many communities as possible, regardless of social class, religion or even political views. • Candidates must constantly remind potential voters of their party’s successes and the opponent’s failures. The secular democratic and human-rights groups in Egypt and in the rest of the Arab world show little sign of understanding these facts of political life. The Muslim Brotherhood, on the other hand, gets at least three out of four. True, they have never been in office. But they have a political program and a vision not only until the next elections, but, in their view, until the Hereafter. And they are very good at reminding Egyptians of why the other party’s policies will be ungodly and therefore catastrophic for Egypt. Above all, they have succeeded in embedding themselves in Egyptian society in ways that could prove crucial. When I was 15 and considered myself a member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, there were secular political groups in the diasporas of Pakistanis, Yemenis and Somalis, who lived in exile in Nairobi like my family. These loosely organized groups had vague plans for building their countries into peaceful, prosperous nations. These were dreams they never realized. The Muslim Brotherhood did more than dream. With the help of money from Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries, they established cells in my school and functioning institutions in my neighborhood. There were extracurricular activities for all age groups. There were prayer and chant hours, as well as communal Koran readings. We were encouraged to become volunteers, to help the indigent, to spread Allah’s message. They established charities to which we could tithe, which then provided health and educational centers. The Brotherhood also provided the only functioning banking networks, based on trust. They rescued teenagers from lives of drug addiction and excited them about a purposeful future for justice. Each of us was expected to recruit more people. Most importantly, their message transcended ethnicity, social class and even educational levels. It is true that the movement was violent, but we tend to underestimate in the West the Brotherhood’s ability to adapt to reality and implement lessons learned. One such adaptation is the ongoing debate within the network on the use of violence. There are two schools of thought within the network, and both of them invoke the Prophet Mohammed. Those who want instant jihad hark back to the time when the Prophet had small armies that defeated massive ones, as in the battles of Badr and Uhud. The nonviolent branch of the Brotherhood emphasizes the Prophet’s perseverance and patience. They emphasize da’wa (persuasion through preaching and by example) and above all a gradual multi-generational process in coming to power and holding on to it. Above all, they argue for taqiyyah, a strategy to collaborate with your enemies until the time is ripe to defeat them or convert them to Islam. Why are the secular democratic forces in Egypt so much weaker than the Muslim Brotherhood? One reason is that they are an amalgam of very diverse elements: There are tribal leaders, free-market liberals, socialists, hard-core Marxists and human rights activists. In other words, they lack common ideological glue comparable to the one that the Brotherhood has. And there is a deep-seated fear that opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, whose aim is to install Shariah once they come to power, will be seen by the masses as a rejection of Islam. What the secular groups fail to do is to come up with a message of opposition that says “yes” to Islam, but “no” to Shariah — in other words, a campaign that emphasizes a separation of religion from politics. For Egypt and other Arab nations to escape the tragedy of either tyranny or Shariah, there has to be a third way that separates religion from politics while establishing a representative government, the rule of law, and conditions friendly to trade, investment and employment. The bravery of the secular groups that have now unified behind Mohamed ElBaradei cannot be doubted. They have taken the world by surprise by mounting a successful protest against a tyrant. The secular democrats’ next challenge is the Brotherhood. They must waste no time in persuading the Egyptian electorate why a Shariah-based government would be bad for them. Unlike the Iranians in 1979, the Egyptians have before them the example of a people who opted for Shariah — the Iranians — and have lived to regret it. The 2009 “green movement” in Iran was a not a “no” to a strongman, but a “no” to Shariah. ElBaradei and his supporters must make clear that a Shariah-based regime is repressive at home and aggressive abroad. Moreover, as the masses cry out against unemployment, rising food prices and corruption, Egypt’s secular groups must show that a Shariah-based government would exacerbate these agonies. The Muslim Brotherhood will insist that a vote for them is a vote for Allah’s law. But the positions of power in government will not be filled by God and his angels. These positions will be filled by men so arrogant as to put themselves in the position of Allah. And as the Iranians of 2009 have learned to their cost, it is harder to vote such men out of office than to vote them in. The Obama administration can help the secular groups with the resources and the skills necessary to organize, campaign and to establish competing economic and civil institutions so that they can defeat the Muslim Brotherhood at the ballot box. As I have come to learn over the years, few things in democratic politics are inevitable. But without effective organization, the secular, democratic forces that have swept one tyranny aside could easily succumb to another. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04iht-edali04.html?_r=1&src=twrhp&pagewanted=all
Hey Jackie! Wanna really blow your mind? A German friend of mine has a theory that the US is behind the Camels and Horses. wild huh?
Assuming that Mubarak steps down tomorrow or during the weekend - what would happen? What do you think is the likeliest scenario, short-term and then after hopefully free elections?
It's been said before but the Mubarak govt. is definitely spreading the word that the U.S. and foreigners are behind the unrest.
[Breaking News] Obama administration discussing proposal with Egyptian officials for Mubarak to resign immediately: NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/world/asia/04diplomacy.html
This is probably the best option available to the US, will have to see if the people will buy what Obama is selling. I guess they will have no choice as the military will get involved.
I've been hearing stories about journalists that work on Egyptian state run TV and radio quitting in protest to what went down today with all of the foreign journalists.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jerusalem-babylon-hiding-my-identity-1.341140 Jerusalem & Babylon / Hiding my identity Egypt’s President Mubarak kept the peace for 30 years, but did nothing to change his people’s hatred of Israel. By Anshel Pfeffer I did an awful thing this week. I committed one of Judaism’s three cardinal sins by renouncing my faith. It happened in a second. I was interviewing a young Islamist on the outskirts of Tahrir Square in central Cairo, and when I asked him how his religion shaped his political outlook, he answered, “It is the same for all men of faith. You are a Christian, are you not?” I mumbled for a second and then said yes and we carried on with the interview. It has been torturing me ever since. Why did I have to pretend to be anything other than a Jew? I very much doubt that if I had owned up to the faith of my fathers, he or any of his friends would have done anything to harm me, but I just didn’t want to take the risk. And besides, it would have ruined the entire flow of what was quite a promising interview to start going into the fact that I was of the Hebraic persuasion. I’m not sure what disturbs me more. The fact that I committed a sin that is not even permissible on pain of death? The fact that I had to stoop to subterfuge to get a few quotes? Or simply a feeling of depression that in the capital of a nation that has been at peace with Israel for 32 years, it still makes sense to hide your origins? Not that I have any problem with hiding my Israeliness. I was born in Britain, write for English-language newspapers often and, let’s face it, I realize why we’re not that popular in the Middle East right now. But the necessity of hiding at least half of my identity for a whole week, talking even with Israeli colleagues in English in the street and looking for secluded street corners to make phone calls, has been an exhausting and paranoia-inducing experience. I feel that I’m being unfair now. The entire Egyptian population is not anti-Semitic, nor, certainly, are a large proportion of the brave protesters risking their lives, first against the baton-wielding police last Friday, and later this week against the mounted attacks of Hosni Mubarak’s diehard supporters. But along with the elation of the revolution, there is a thinly veiled hysteria waiting to erupt at almost any moment, and the presence of an Israeli “spy” could well be the trigger for that breakout. This fact was brought home to me in the last 24 hours I spent in Egypt. On Wednesday, an American colleague emailed me to apologize that a local contact of his would not agree to talk to me because he was afraid he would be accused of contact with the Mossad. On my last day, there were already reports of local, government-controlled television stations trying to incite more citizens against the pro-democracy protesters by saying there were Israeli spies among them. I have reported that there were very few anti-Israel slogans or signs during the week of demonstrations in Cairo, and that remains true. The protesters want democracy, and if they are blaming foreign elements for supporting Mubarak, then the United States and the Arab League are the ones most frequently criticized. The shuttered synagogues of Cairo and Alexandria were not attacked (there remain only a handful of elderly Jews in Egypt’s second-largest city and virtually none in the capital), and a shooting incident last weekend near the Israeli embassy was probably not connected to any political violence, but to looting. But Israel still remains a convenient bogeyman for all occasions. Those in Israel who have been bewailing the almost certain loss of a staunch strategic ally would do well to remember that in his three decades as president, Mubarak did very little, if anything, to educate his people and change their devilish perspective of Israel. Generals and senior ministers may have been in close contact with their Israeli counterparts, but at every other level of government and civil society, there is deep antipathy. Two months ago, the governor of southern Sinai even blamed shark attacks off the Red Sea coast on Mossad-trained beasts of the deep. On balance, I was probably doing the prudent thing by not giving myself away as a yid while walking among the Islamists. But I would like to believe that contrary to the prophecies of doom emanating from the corridors of power in Jerusalem this week, the revolution in Egypt will not ultimately result in an Islamic republic on the Negev border. Certainly hundreds of Egyptians I spoke to over the last seven days have no intention of allowing that to happen. Mubarak kept the peace for 30 years, and there is certainly reason to be grateful for that. But it is still considered dangerous to walk the streets of Cairo speaking Hebrew, even when all is calm. Egypt has entered a period of chaos. But along with the hope that it will emerge more democratic than before, I also hope that the next time I visit this land, I will feel comfortable using all my identities.
There is this incredible naivete about Israelis. Do you really think you can steal people's land, secure a peace through bribery, intimidation, occupation, and coercion and then not expect people to hate your guts? Seriously? The Arabs have a long ass memory and Zionism's chickens are coming home to roost in a major way.
Egyptians don't like Israelis. That isn't going to change no matter who runs the country. Egyptians, for the most part don't visit Israel, even though they have always been able to. They aren't curious about their language, their culture or their history, and classical anti-Semitic rhetoric is no stranger to Egyptian media, nor is it censored in a press that can certainly not be called "free" by anyone this side of Pyongyang. That can't be said of most Israelis. Israelis do like Egyptians, and are fascinated by their history. And who isn't? They go to Sinai of course, but many go to Cairo...bus tours are available there, and so on. It's the one neighbor a generation has been able to engage and despite the cold hostility, many brave the opportunity to do so and most come back with positive stories about their time spent with Egyptian people. It doesn't matter that dissolving the treaty won't lead to immediate war. I can could go on like an autistic writer for Jane's Quarterly about how unprepared the Egyptian military would be under a new government, or it's dependance on Uncle Sam's maintenance and supply train or any of that mess, but that isn't important. As I've said before, all that really matters from an Israeli point of view (and anyone who hopes for some kind of peace) is that the treaty is honored. The treaty is the starting point from any sort of new peace agreement to happen in the region, and in that regard it is more important than the actual truce it signifies. The right-wing ideologues in Israel can't wait for peace to fail with Egypt. It means they no longer have to deal with the pesky fine print of their treaty that says that Israel has to resolve the occupation and the problems with Palestinians in a reasonable amount of time. It means they can start looking to reclaim the Sinai (read the comments to any story on the Jpost and you'll see the rabid true-believers for yourself). And most importantly, they can ignore ANY calls to make peace with anyone because they can point at Egypt and say "See, we tried that, but peace only works for as long as the crooked dictator you make it with stays in power. Why negotiate away what little we have?" On the same hand, my leftist friends are waxing a bit too romantic in my opinion, and to them, I suspect they think I'm not showing sufficient enthusiasm for the Revolution. I tried to be diplomatic about it by saying "The problem with revolutions is revolutionaries. Sometimes the enthusiasm with revolution is a lot more exciting than the dirty work and hard decisions that need to be made to create an ordered society." I also maintain that no one can predict what will happen, and that it's prudent to avoid projecting either one's fears or wishes into the event. The only thing for certain, I said, is that a nation that has half of it's population living on less than $2 a day now is having to deal with a food distribution system that has been broken down now for a week. I suspect people are not being well fed, if at all. No society stays intact for very long on an empty stomach and the extremes that millions of starving people resort to has bully to do with religion or political identity. For this I've been called a closet fascist appeaser, a hypocritical American neo-con...or worse. And yet, these are the things the old protestors from Paris in 1968 all seem to say. They took to the streets and made no compromise...and ended up with de Gaulle getting re-elected, when things could have gone very differently had they played their hand a bit smarter. I use that example, because it is the mildest I can think of. But just as none of the self-proclaimed experts didn't see this coming, you're going to have to color me skeptical when the same ones proclaim either doom or euphoria. Tony Blair and Obama and every other Western leader should say as little as possible, other than to convince Mubarak to do the same and close shop. Egypt's military isn't going anywhere and is going to need it's leadership to stay intact for whatever transition is going to take place. As to what will happen to the Camp David treaty with Israel in the aftermath of this revolution in Egypt, I'm reasonably certain whomever takes power there will want to discuss the fine print of the agreement (Israel's obligation to end the Occupation) before it's given any assurances of continuing. I'm hoping this is a good thing, but then I have to assume that Israel's leadership isn't as short sided as Hosni Mubarak. Considering the last 30 years...I might yet need another stiff shot of skepticism.
If Israel's policies come off as naive, then you've been hoodwinked. I don't think any leaders in the region are naive. They are shrewd and are very good at manipulating the wishes and fears of their own people along with that of Western allies, combine it with ambiguity and some half-truths...and voila, you have the formula on how to successfully run a country in the Middle East for more than a year. Yes, the Occupation sucks and was a huge mistake. Most Israelis came to that conclusion a long time ago. But if you think the resolution of the mess is simple, I'd be careful about who you call naive.
No. People don't like occupation. It has always been that way, silly. It has nothing to do with anti-semitism unless it is semites doing he occupation. Not so tough if you aren't blinded by idology.
If needs be to make it simpler for you I'll give you a few examples that don't involve semites or Jews.
I'm not offended by most criticism of Israel. Most of time I agree with it. But what make me raise my eyebrows is when Zionism is used in the pejorative. Zionism is a secular nationalist ideology. The fact the settlers, neo-cons, and people like Meir Kahane abuse the word doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'll give you that it's anachronistic, and that it's origins are very 19th Century, but the ideology of Theodore Herzl is not much different than Garibaldi's and it has jack to do with the Occupation. People that want to connect those dots open themselves up for the kind of criticism they get.
